53d  Congress. 


53d  Congress,  > SENATE. 


2d  Session.  > 


SENATE. 


( Report 
l No.  396. 


4 2*./ 

Lin  35w 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


May  11,  1894. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Proctqr,  from  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  sub- 
mitted the  following 


REPORT: 


[To  accompany  S.  1359.] 


The  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  whom  was  referred 
the  bill  (S.  1359)  to  amend  an  act  approved  July  15, 1882,  entitled  “An 
act  to  increase  the  water  supply  of  the  city  of  Washington,  and  for 
other  purposes,”  having  carefully  considered  the  same,  beg  leave  to 
report  as  follows : 

There  can  be  no  question  of  greater  importance  to  the  people  of  any 
large  city  than  that  of  securing  a sufficient  supply  of  water,  pure  in 
quality  and  with  a reserve  in  quantity  ample  for  the  demands  of  the 
future.  Here  it  is  not  merely  a local  question,  but  one  of  importance 
to  the  whole  country  as  well.  Washington  is  the  temporary  residence 
of  thousands,  and  is  visited  annually  by  millions  coming  from  all  parts 
of  the  country.  The  United  States  owns  a large  share  of  the  property. 
The  public  buildings,  parks,  and  grounds,  as  a whole,  are  the  finest  in 
the  world.  The  demand  for  new  buildings  and  other  improvements 
will  be  frequent  and  imperative,  as  the  machinery  of  government  must 
continually  and  steadily  increase  with  the  increase*  of  population  of  the 
whole  country.  Whatever  concerns  the  welfare  of  this  city,  therefore, 
will  become  more  and  more  of  general  interest. 

The  present  supply  of  water  is  not  sufficient  in  quantity  or  force  for 
present  needs;  some  action  must,  therefore,  be  taken  at  once.  The  sit- 
uation is  so  fully  stated  in  the  able  report  of  Col.  Elliot,  of  the  Corps 
of  Engineers,  who  is  now  in  local  charge  of  the  aqueduct  and  water 
supply,  that  little  need  be  said  in  way  of  detail.  The  riparian  and 
water  rights  at  Great  Falls  are  now  owned  by  the  Great  Falls  Manu- 
facturing Company,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  and  the 
United  States.  The  extent  of  the  Government’s  present  interest  is  in 
dispute.  The  main  question  presenting  itself  to  the  committee  is 
whether  to  recommend  the  taking,  under  the  right  of  eminent  domain, 
of  a supply  for  ordinary  purposes  sufficient  for  many  years  to  come,  or 
whether  to  acquire  at  once  all  the  rights  to  the  water  at  that  point, 
settle  the  existing  differences  and  all  danger  of  future  controversies 
about  title,  and  end  forever  any  danger  of  a short  supply  and  the  con- 
tinual trouble  and  risk  of  a divided  ownership. 

If  an  individual  or  a business  corporation  was  in  the  precise  situa- 
tion of  the  Government,  owning  a part  of  the  water  rights,  under  the 


2 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


necessity  of  adding  thereto  at  once,  and  with  the  certainty  of  needing 
further  additions  from  time  to  time,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
party  would  seek,  as  a matter  of  prudence  and  common  business  fore- 
sight, to  acquire  the  entire  water  right  before  extensive  improvements 
were  made  by  the  other  owners  which  would  greatly  enhance  the  cost. 
And  in  this  case  what  would  be  good  policy  for  an  individual  or  private 
corporation  would  be  the  more  so  for  the  Government  by  reason  of  the 
certainty  of  continuing  and  increasing  requirements.  The  supply,  to 
be  sure,  is  much  larger  than  will  be  needed  for  aqueduct  purposes,  so 
far  as  can  be  foreseen,  but  even  for  this  purpose  alone  your  committee 
believe  that  it  would  be  wise  to  control  it  all. 

But  there  is  another  point  worthy  of  consideration,  and  that  is  the 
rapidly  increasing  tendency  towards  municipal  control  of  certain  mat- 
ters of  public  necessity  and  convenience  in  which  the  entire  people,  all 
classes  and  conditions,  have  substantially  an  equal  interest.  In  our 
early  history  turnpikes,  owned  by  private  corporations,  were  common  ; 
toll  bridges  the  rule,  and  towns  and  cities  often  obtained  their  water 
supply  from  private  companies.  Now,  turnpikes  and  toll  bridges  are 
relics  of  the  past;  the  water  supply  in  large  towns  is  almost  without 
exception  now  furnished  by  the  municipality,  and  street  lighting  by 
the  city  is  already  being  considered  and  adopted  to  quite  an  extent. 
Whether  it  is  not  feasible  and  economical  for  cities  to  generate  and 
supply  by  electricity  heat  as  well  as  light,  is  a question  already  mooted. 
If  generally  adopted  within  twenty-five  years,  it  would  be  no  stranger 
than  the  progress  of  the  last  quarter  of  a century.  But  laying  this 
possibility  aside,  the  matter  of  lighting  is  a present  issue,  and  one  of 
greater  importance  in  this  city  than  in  any  other  on  account  of  the 
large  number  of  buildings  to  be  lighted  at  public  expense. 

Already  several  measures  providing  for  Government  ownership  of  a 
lighting  plant  have  been  proposed. 

All  the  area  of  more  than  100  feet  elevation  above  low  water  at  the 
navy-yard  is  now  supplied  by  pumping,  and  for  want  of  sufficient  pres- 
sure all  above  75  feet  will  probably  soon  require  it.  The  line  of  100 
feet  elevation  runs  in  the  vicinity  of  Florida  avenue,  and  of  75  feet  in 
the  vicinity  of  Massachusetts  avenue,  west  of  Eleventh  street.  The 
time  can  not  be  far  distant  when  a large  majority  of  the  residences  will 
be  elevated  above  this  line.  The  vicinity  of  Tenallytown  has  an  eleva- 
tion of  more  than  400  feet  above  low  tide.  The  pumping  is  now  done 
at  the  pump  house  on  U street,  between  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth,  at 
a large  expense,  and  this  expense  will  be  constantly  increasing  as  higher 
lands  about  the  city  are  built  up  and  higher  buildings  constructed.  It 
might  be  done  with  great  saving  for  the  future  by  electricity  generated 
by  the  water  power  at  Great  Falls. 

If  the  entire  power  at  Great  Falls  is  acquired,  we  believe  it  will  be 
ample  for  electric  lighting  and  pumping  purposes  for  the  city.  The 
Great  Falls  Power  Company  have  very  recently  obtained  new  charters 
from  the  legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Maryland.  Their  purpose  is  evi- 
dently to  develop  the  power  and  supply  it  directly,  or  through  other 
companies,  to  the  city  for  lighting  and  other  purposes. 

There  are  no  improvements  now  at  Great  Falls,  except  the  aqueduct 
dam,  built  and  owned  by  the  United  States.  If  the  Government  is 
ever  to  acquire  control  it  should  be  done  before  any  outlay  is  made  by 
the  other  owners.  Such  outlay  must  be  to  them  a questionable  invest- 
ment, in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Government  is  sure  to  require  an 
increased  supply  from  time  to  time  in  the  future,  thus  endangering  the 
business  of  the  power  company  and  destroying  or  greatly  lesseniug  the 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


3 


value  of  their  improvements,  with  the  risk  that  they  may  not  be  suffi- 
ciently recompensed.  Your  committee  are  therefore  of  the  opinion  that 
all  the  water  ancl  riparian  rights  at  Great  Falls  necessary  for  the  con- 
trol and  use  of  the  entire  power  should  be  acquired  at  this  time  ; that  it 
will  be  a wise  economy  to  do  so;  that  ownership  in  part  by  the  United 
States  and  in  part  by  private  business  corporations  is  a relation  unwise 
and  unsafe  for  the  Government,  and  should  be  terminated  at  once;  that 
the  other  owners  can  afford  to  surrender  their  rights  now  on  much  better 
terms  for  the  Government  than  after  they  have  made  their  improve- 
ments, and  that  no  outlay  of  money  can  contribute  more  than  this  to 
the  future  welfare  of  the  capital  of  the  country. 


Office  of  the  Commissioners 
of  the  District  of  Columbia, 

Washington , March  6 , 1894. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Commissioners  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith 
Senate  bill  1359,  entitled  a bill  to  amend  an  act  approved  July  15, 1882, 
entitled  u An  act  to  increase  the  water  supply  of  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, and  for  other  purposes,”  and  to  respectfully  suggest  that  as  the 
Washington  Aqueduct  and  the  dam  at  Great  Falls  are  under  charge 
of  the  War  Department,  that  the  bill  be  referred  to  the  honorable  Sec- 
retary of  War.  The  Commissioners  remark  that  there  is  a present  need 
of  an  increased  supply  of  water  for  the  District,  and  submit  for  the 
information  of  the  committee  the  inclosed  copies  of  reports  from  Mr.  S. 
T.  Thomas,  attorney  for  the  District,  and  from  Captain  Derby,  Corps  of 
Engineers,  assistant  to  the  Engineer  Commissioner,  in  charge  of  the 
water  department  of  the  District. 

Yery  respectfully, 

John  W.  Eoss, 

President  Board  of  Commissioners , District  Columbia . 

Hon.  Isham  G.  Harris, 

Chairman  Committee  on  the  District  Columbia , TJ.  8.  Senate. 


~ Washington,  January  23,  1894. 

To  the  Hon.  Comviissioners,  etc.: 

Gentlemen  : I have  the  honor  to  return  to  you  herewith  Senate  hill  1359  (Fifty- 
third  Congress,  second  session),  to  amend  the  act  of  July  15, 1882 providing  for  the 
increase  of  the  water  supply  of  this  city,  together  with  my  views  thereon  agreeably 
to  your  reference  of  the  20th  instant.  In  order  to  correctly  understand  the  relation 
between  the  District  and  the  United  States  in  reference  to  the  Washington  Aque- 
duct, it  is  necessary  to  refer  briefly  to  the  legislation  by  Congress  on  the  subject. 
As  early  as  1819  Congress  appropriated  money  to  u lay  pipes  to  supply  the  Presi- 
dent’s house  and  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  Government  with  water.” 
Many  plans  for  a water  supply  had  been  proposed  to  Congress,  but  nothing  of  any 
consequence  was  accomplished  until  1852  (10  Stat.,  92).  In  that  year  the  civil  and 
diplomatic  appropriation  bill  contained  an  item  of  $5,000,  “ to  enable  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  cause  the  necessary  surveys,  projects,  and  estimates  to  be 
made  for  determining  the  best  means  of  affording  the  cities  of  Washington  and 
Georgetown  an  unfailing  supply  of  good  and  wholesome  water,  report  thereof  to 
be  made  to  Congress  at  its  next  session.”  This  appropriation  was  the  beginning  of 
what  has  since  become  one  of  the  greatest  aqueducts  of  modern  times.  In  execu- 
tion of  the  above  clause  of  the  appropriation  bill  President  Fillmore  transmitted  to 
Congress  the  report  of  Gen.  Totten,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  Army,  recom- 
mended the  construction  of  an  aqueduct  from  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Potomac  to 
Washington. 


4 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


This  appropriation  was  followed  in  1853  by  one  of  $150,000  “to  be  expended  under 
the  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  water 
into  the  city  of  Washington,  upon  such  plans  and  upon  such  places  as  he  may 
approve”  (10  Stat.,206).  With  this  money  the  Washington  Aqueduct  designed  to 
supply  the  cities  of  Washington  and  Georgetown  “with  pure  and  wholesome  water” 
was  begun.  Afterwards,  by  various  acts  of  Congress  extending  down  to  and  includ- 
ing an  act  approved  June  25,  1860,  the  necessary  money  for  acquiring  land  and  the 
construction  and  completion  of  the  aqueduct  was  appropriated.  On  March  3,  1863, 
Congress  passed  an  act  amendatory  of  its  act  of  March  3,  1859,  authorizing  the  cor- 
porations of  Washington  and  Georgetown,  to  levy  and  collect  a water  tax  on  all  real 
property  which  borders  on  an  avenue  or  street  through  which  a water  main  has  been 
laid  “for  the  purpose  of  paying  for  such  mains.”  Said  tax  to  be  collected  in  live 
installments,  and  to  constitute  a fund  to  be  used  “ exclusively  to  defray  the  cost  of 
distribution  of  water,  and  other  matters  connected  therewith.”  By  the  same  act  the 
city  of  Washington  was  authorized  to  erect  lire  plugs  and  to  collect  a tax  thereon. 
In  virtue  of  this  authority  the  city  of  Washington  passed  various  ordinances  on  the 
subject  (Webb’s  Digest,  294-418).  On  July  12, 1876,  Congress  (19  Stat.,  83)  extended 
the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the  city  of  Washington  relating  to  water  taxes,  water 
rents,  and  water  main  taxes  over  the  entire  District.  On  June  10,  1879  (21  Stat.,  9), 
the  water  service  of  the  District  of  Columbia  was  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
Commissioners,  excepting  such  powers  and  duties  only  as  belong  to  the  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  Army. 

On  July  1, 1882  (22  Stat.,  135),  the  operations  of  the  water  department  of  the  Dis- 
trict were  placed  under  the  direction  of  the  engineer’s  office  of  the  District,  subject 
to  the  control  of  the  Commissioners.  By  act  of  Congress  approved  July  15,  1882,  to 
increase  the  water  supply  of  the  city  of  Washington,  the  Secretary  of  War  was 
required  to  cause  a survey  to  be  made,  and  a map  of  the  land  necessary  to  extend  the 
aqueduct,  and  of  the  land  necessary  for  a reservoir  near  Sixth  street  extended,  and  a 
like  survey  and  map  of  land  necessary  for  the  dam  across  the  river  at  Great  Falls 
including  the  land  now  occupied  by  the  dam  and  the  land  acquired  in  the  extension 
of  said  dam  across  Conns  Island  to  the  Virginia  shore,  one-half  the  cost  of  said 
improvement  to  be  charged  to  a “ capital  account”  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury, 
and  the  surplus  water  rents  paid  into  the  Treasury,  and  credit  to  the  account  thus 
created  until  it  is  extinguished.  And  the  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  regulate 
water  rents  from  time  to  time  so  as  to  make  them  sufficient  to  pay  the  expense  of 
maintaining  the  works  and  the  interest  on  said  “capital  account”  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  said  act;  that  after  the  extinguishment  of  said  account,  and 
until  further  action  by  Congress,  the  surplus  water  rents  were  to  be  paid  into  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  (22  Stat.,  168).  By  act  of  Congress  approved  July  5, 
1884,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  Commissioners  to  include  in  their  annual  estimates 
for  the  expenses  of  the  water  department,  the  estimate  to  be  made  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  amount  necessary  to  refund  one-half,  in  not  less  than  twenty- 
five  installments,  of  the  expense  of  the  water  supply  extension  advanced  by  the 
United  States  under  the  act  of  July  15, 1882. 

By  act  of  Congress  approved  June  17,  1889,  the  Commissioners  were  authorized  to 
lay  water  mains  and  water  pipes  and  to  erect  fire  plugs  and  hydrants  wherever  the 
same  might  in  their  judgment  be  necessary  (26  Stat.,  159). 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  plant  which  supplies  this  city  with  water  is  the 
property  of  the  United  States.  The  legislation  proposed  by  the  present  bill  is  a 
departure  from  the  policy  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  Washington  Aque- 
duct, maintained  without  interruption  for  more  than  forty  years.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  the  worthless  “Lydecker  Tunnel,”  constructed  under  the  act  of  July  15, 
1882,  this  District  has  never  been  called  upon  to  pay  any  part  of  the  expense  of  con- 
structing the  Washington  Aqueduct.  It  can  never  use  the  water  as  a source  of 
revenue,  and  its  expenses  so  far,  except  in  regard  to  the  worthless  tunnel,  above 
referred  to,  have  been  limited  to  the  cost  of  laying  mains  for  the  distribution  of  the 
water  after  it  ip  brought  to  the  city.  However,  if  the  District  is  to  be  again  charged 
with  half  the  expense  of  enlarging  the  Washington  Aqueduct  at  Great  Falls,  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  eminently  proper  to  amend  the  eighth  section  of  the 
bill  so  as  to  enable  its  Commissioners  to  participate  in  deciding  the  question  whether 
what  is  desired  by  the  bill  is  necessary.  At  least  two  of  the  Commissioners  should 
be  added  to  the  board  provided  for  in  section  one.  Of  course  with  the  growth  of 
the  city  there  is  a demand  for  increased  water  supply,  and  the  land  and  water  rights 
proposed  to  be  acquired  by  the  present  bill  will  at  some  time  be  necessary  to  increase 
that  supply,  if  it  is  not  now  necessary,  and  the  sooner,  in  point  of  economy  it  is 
acquired,  the  better.  But  it  does  seem  to  me  in  so  important  a matter  as  this,  which 
involves  a departure  from  a policy  which  has  prevailed  for  nearly  half  a century, 
and  a charge  against  the  District  of  Columbia  of  one-half  of  the  expense  of  enlarg- 
ing the  aqueduct  at  Great  Falls,  it  is  manifestly  proper  that  the  Commissioners 
should  be  consulted.  And  then,  too,  as  pointed  out  by  Capt.  Derby,  the  time,  ninety 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


5 


days,  within  which  the  Attorney-General  and  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  specify  the 
metes  and  bounds  of  the  land  required,  is  too  short.  It  should  be  at  least  six  months 
or  one  year. 

Very  respectfully, 

S.  T.  Thomas, 

N Attorney,  District  Columbia. 


January  18,  1894. 

The  question  of  what  the  District  of  Columbia  has  in  the  water  rights  at  Great 
Falls  on  the  Potomac  is  one  on  which  the  water  department  of  the  District  is  not 
informed,  the  supply  of  water-having  heretofore  been  entirely  furnished  by  the 
United  States  under  the  management  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army.  Doubt- 
less a copy  of  this  bill  has  been  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  examination  and 
report. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  should 
own  the  rights  to  at  least  twice  the  amount  of  water  that  is  now  taken  from  the 
Potomac,  say  3,000,000  gallons  per  day ; and  that,  if  they  do  not  now  own  these 
rights,  it  would  be  more  economical  to  secure  them  now  than  later. 

As  to  whether  it  would  be  advantageous  to  the  District  and  the  United  States  to  own 
more  of  these  water  rights  than  the  amount  above  mentioned,  would  depend  on  how 
much  water  these  is  available  and  how  much  it  would  cost  to  get  control  of  it.  The 
bill  provides  (section  3)  means  of  throwing  light  on  these  points,  and  this  result,  at 
least,  is  most  desirable.  The  period  of  ninety  days  specified  in  section  1 is  too  short 
and  should  be  increased  to  one  year. 

As  under  section  8 the  District  is  required  to  bear  half  of  the  expense  of  carrying 
out  the  act,  the  board  provided  for  in  section  1 should,  in  my  judgment,  be  increased 
by  the  addition  of  two  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  District  of  Columbia;  all  parties 
concerned  should  certainty  have  a yoice  in  determining  the  important  question  as  to 
whether  the  proposed  purchase  is  worth  the  cost  of  it. 

G.  McC.  Derby, 

Captain,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 


Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  March  24,  1S94. 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  S.  1359  (Fifty-third  Congress,  second 
session),  “A  bill  to  amend  an  act  approved  July  15, 1882,  entitled  ‘An  act  to  increase 
the  water  supply  of  the  city  of  Washington,  and  for  other  purposes/”  with  letter  of 
the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  U.  S.  Senate,  of  March  9,  1894,  and 
other  papers  referred  to  this  office  therewith. 

Attention  is  invited  to  the  remarks  herewith  of  Col.  G.  H.  Elliot,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, in  immediate  charge  of  the  Washington  Aqueduct,  and  to  the  amendments  of 
the  bill  recommended  by  that  officer.  Certain  of  these  amendments  are  indicated  in 
copy  A of  the  bill,  herewith. 

S'  But  Col.  Elliot  states  that  it  is  not  apparent  that  the  bill  thus  amended,  having 
become  a law,  would  authorize  the  use  by  the  United  States  of  water,  acquired 
under  the  bill,  for  actuating  hydraulic  machinery  (turbines)  located  below  the  falls, 
and  also  suggests  additional  amendments  looking  to  the  taking  of  all  of  the  water 
flowing  at  Great  Falls.  These  additional  amendments  are  indicated  on  copy  B of 
the  bill,  herewith. 

I concur  in  the  recommendation  that  the  bill  be  amended  as  indicated  on  copy  B, 
and  further  recommend  that,  if  the  bill  is  to  become  a law,  it  shall  be  so  worded  as 
to  enable  the  United  States  not  only  to  acquire  title  to  all  lands  and  water  rights  at 
and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Great  Falls,  but  also  to  use  the  water  so  taken  to  actuate 
machinery  located  anywhere,  in  connection  with  the  public  service  of  the  District 
of  Columbia. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Thos.  Lincoln  Casey, 
Brigadier-General,  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Hon.  Daniel  S.  Lamont, 

Secretary  of  War. 


6 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


Office  of  the  Washington  Aqueduct, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  March  20,  1894. 

General:  In  respect  of  bill  S.  1359,  Fifty-third  Congress,  second  session,  “A  bill 
to  amend  an  act  approved  July  15,  1882,  entitled,  An  act  to  increase  the  water  sup- 
ply of  the  city  of  Washington,  and  for  other  purposes”,  which  you  sent  me  on  the 
9th  instant  for  report  (E.  D.  5250-1894),  I beg  to  state  as  follows: 

The  bill,  it  will  have  been  observed,  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  “by  request.” 
It  relates  exclusively  to  land  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls,  and,  while  it  is  in 
most  respects  an  excellent  bill,  there  are  certain  amendments  that  should  be  made  in 
the  interests  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  which  is  required  to 
pay  one-half  of  whatever  sums  are  to  be  expended  for  the  purchase  of  these  land 
and  water  rights. 

The  act  of  July  15,  1882,  provided,  among  other  things,  for  the  acquisition  by  con- 
demnation of  the  outstanding  title,  if  any,  to  the  land  necessary  for  a dam  across 
the  Potomac  River  at  Great  Falls,  including  the  land  then  occupied  by  the  dam,  the 
land  required  for  the  extension  of  the  dam  across  Conns  Island  to  and  upon  the 
Virginia  shore  and  the  land  on  which  the  gate  house  stands.  The  act  provided 
also  for  the  acquisition  of  certain  unspecified  water  rights,  and  contained  an  apjrro- 
priation,  of  $45,000  to  pay  for  all  of  these  lands  (except  the  land  occupied  by  the 
gate  house,  which  was  not  provided  for),  and  for  the  water  rights  in  the  following 
item: 

“To  pay  for  water  rights  and  land  necessary  to  extend  dam  at  Great  Falls  to  the 
Virginia  shore,  forty-five  thousand  dollars.” 

The  act  also  contained  the  following  item : 

“For  work  and  material  to  complete  the  dam  at  Great  Falls  to  the  level  of  one 
hundred  and  forty-eight  feet  above  tide,  and  extend  the  same  to  the  Virginia  shore, 
one  hundred  and  forty-five  thousand  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  dollars.” 

The  proceedings  to  be  had  in  condemnation  were  prescribed  as  follows : 

“'When  the  map  and  survey  are  completed,  the  Attorney- General  shall  proceed  to 
ascertain  the  owners  or  claimants  of  the  premises  embraced  in  the  survey,  and  shall 
cause  to  be  published,  for  the  space  of  thirty  days,  in  one  or  more  of  the  daily  news- 
papers published  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  a description  of  the  entire  tract  or 
tracts  of  laud  embraced  in  the  survey,  with  a notice  that  the  same  has  been  taken 
for  the  uses  mentioned  in  this  act,  and  notifying  all  claimants  to  any  portion  of  said 
premises  to  file,  within  its  period  of  publication,  in  the  Department  of  Justice,  a 
description  of  the  tract  or  parcel  claimed,  and  a statement  of  its  value  as  estimated 
by  the  claimant.  On  application  of  the  Attorney-General,  the  chief  justice  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  appoint  three  persons,  not  in  the 
employ  of  the  Government  or  related  to  the  claimants,  to  act  as  appraisers,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be,  upon  receiving  from  the  Attorney-General  a description  of  any  tract 
or  parcel  the  ownership  of  which  is  claimed  separately,  to  fairly  and  justly  value  the 
same  and  report  such  valuation  to  the  Attorney-General,  who  thereupon  shall  upon 
being  satisfied  as  to  the  title  to  the  same,  cause  to  be  offered  to  the  owner  or  owners 
the  amount  fixed  by  the  appraisers  as  the  value  thereof;  and  if  the  offer  be  accepted 
then  upon  the  execution  of  a deed  to  the  United  States  in  form  satisfactory  to  the 
Attorney-General,  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  pay  the  amount  to  such  owner  or 
owners  from  the  appropriation  made  therefor  in  this  act. 

“In  making  the  valuation  the  appraisers  shall  only  consider  the  present  value  of 
the  land  without  reference  to  its  value  for  the  uses  for  which  it  is  taken  uuder  the 
provisions  of  this  act. 

“ The  appraisers  shall  each  receive  for  their  services  $5  for  each  days7  actual  serv- 
ice in  making  the  said  appraisements. 

“ Any  person  or  corporation  having  any  estate  or  interest  in  any  of  the  lands 
embraced  in  said  survey  and  map  who  shall  for  any  reason  not  have  been  tendered 
payment  therefor  as  above  provided  or  who  shall  have  declined  to  accept  the  amount 
tendered  therefor,  and  any  person  who,  by  reason  of  the  taking  of  said  land,  or  by 
the  construction  of  the  works  hereinafter  directed  to  be  constructed,  shall  be 
directly  injured  in  any  property  right,  may,  at  anytime  within  one  year  from  the 
publication  of  notice  by  the  Attorney-General  as  above  provided,  file  a petition  in 
the  Court  of  Claims  of  the  United  States  setting  forth  bis  right  or  title  and  the 
amount  claimed  by  him  as  damage  for  the  property  taken  or  injury  sustained;  and 
the  said  court  shall  hear  and  adjudicate  such  claims  in  the  same  manner  as  other 
claims  against  the  United  States  are  now  by  law  directed  to  be  heard  and  adjudi- 
cated therein : Provided,  That  the  court  shall  make  such  special  rules  in  respect  to 
such  cases  as  shall  secure  their  hearing  and  adjudicatio  n with  the  least  possible 
delay.” 

The  act  also  contained  the  following  requirements : 

“Judgment  in  favor  of  such  claimants  shall  be  paid  as  other  judgments  of  said 
court  are  now  directed  to  be  paid;  and  any  claimant  to  whom  a tender  shall  have 
been  made  as  hereinbefore  authorized  and  who  shall  have  declined  to  accept  the 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


7 


same,  shall,  unless  he  recover  an  amount  greater  than  that  so  tendered,  be  taxed 
with  the  entire  cost  of  the  proceeding.  All  claims  for  value  or  damages  on  account 
of  ownership  of  any  interest  in  said  premises,  or  on  account  of  injury  to  a property 
right  by  the  construction  of  said  works,  shall,  unless  a petition  for  the  recovery 
thereof  be  filed  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  first  publication  of  notice  by 
the  Attorney-General  as  above  directed,  be  forever  barred:  Provided,  That  owners 
or  claimants  laboring  under  any  of  the  disabilities  defined  in  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions of  the  District  of  Columbia  may  file  a petition  at  any  time  within  one  year 
from  the  removal  of  the  disability. 

“ Upon^the  publication  of  the  notice  as  above  directed,  the  Secretary  of  War  may 
take  possession  of  the  premises  embraced  in  the  survey  and  map,  and  proceed  with  the 
constructions  herein  authorized;  and  upon  payment  being  made  therefor,  or  without 
payment,  upon  the  expiration  of  the  times  above  limited  without  the  filing  of  a peti- 
tion, an  absolute  title  to  the  premises  shall  vest  in  the  United  States.” 

The  dam  was  extended  and  completed  as  specified  in  the  years  1884-86  at  a cost  of 
about  $140,000. 

I was  not  placed  in  charge  of  the  aqueduct  till  several  years  afterwards,  but  it  can 
be  stated  that  neither  the  land  occupied  by  the  dam,  which  was  taken  by  the  right 
of  eminent  domain,  nor  the  water  rights  have  been  paid  for. 

The  following  claims  for  the  land  and  water  rights  taken  and  the  damages  result- 
ing from  the  taking  were  filed : 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  by  Lewis  C.  Smith,  president,  a claim 
for  $600,900.  The  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company,  by  Benjamin  F.  Butler, 
president. 

The  claims  of  this  company  were  stated  in  the  following  terms : 

“ If  the  condemnation  be  for  all  of  its  water  rights,  the  company  estimates  its 
damage  at  $1,000,900  and  claims  this  amount. 

“If  the  condemnation  be  for  one-half  of  said  rights,  then  the  company  claims 
$500,000. 

“ If  the  United  States  shall  consent  to  let  the  company  draw  from  the  dam  the  sur- 
plus and  unused  water  and  shall  provide  the  means  for  such  drawing,  a further 
reduction  of  the  claim  will  be  made.” 

1 send  herewith  a plat  explanatory  of  this  report,  in  which  I shall  endeavor  to  draw 
attention  to  the  great  importance  of  a careful  and  cautious  consideration  of  the  bill. 

The  plat  shows  Conn’s  Island,  the  Maryland  and  Virginia  channels  separated  by  it, 
and  the  site  of  the  dam,  about  3,000  feet  long,  as  it  now  exists,  extending  from  shore 
to  shore  of  the  river. 

The  dam  as  it  was  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  act  extended  out  from  the  Mary- 
land shore  of  the  river  above  the  falls  and  below  the  intake  of  the  Washington  Aque- 
duct, across  the  Maryland  channel  to  the  shore  of  Conn’s  Island,  and  was  1,034  feet 
long.  The  necessity  of  the  extension  of  the  dam  provided  for  in  the  act  arose  from 
the  fact  that  by  reason  of  its  narrow  width,  shallow  depth,  and  its  obstructions,  the 
Maryland  channel  was  found  to  be  inadequate  to  furnish  to  the  aqueduct  all  the 
water  required  to  meet  the  increasing  demands  upon  it. 

The  land  taken  under  the  act  mainly  consisted  of  a narrow  strip  Extending  from 
the  medium  filum  aquae  of  the  Virginia  channel  to  the  western  shore  of  Conn’s  Island; 
thence  across  Conn’s  Island  to  the  eastern  shore ; thence  to  the  medium  filum  aquae  of 
the  Maryland  channel.  The  strip  did  not  extend  from  the  medium  filum  aquae  of  the 
Virginia  channel  to  the  Virginia  shore  for  the  reason  (see  the  plat)  that  the  United 
States  was  already,  from  1854,  a ripaiian  owner  at  the  Virginia  end  of  the  proposed 
extention  of  dam. 

There  was  also  included  in  the  taking  a small  triangular  portion  of  the  bed  of  the 
Virginia  channel  between  the  medium  filum  aquae  of  the  channel  and  the  Virginia 
shore  that  was  not  covered  by  the  riparian  right  of  the  United  States  as  an  owner 
on  that  shore,  the  lot  on  which  the  gatehouse  stands,  and  also  the  land  on  the  Mary- 
land shore  below  this  lot,  extending  to  the  shore,  and  covering  in  addition  that  part 
of  the  river-bed  site  of  the  Maryland  end  of  the  old  dam  that  was  not  already  the 
property  of  the  United  States. 

The  area  of  the  land  taken  is  in  all  about  21  acres.  Of  this  about  8f  acres  are  on 
Conn’s  Island ; about  2\  acres  are  on  the  Maryland  shore ; about  7 acres  are  on  the  bed 
of  the  Potomac,  in  the  Virginia  channel,  and  about  2f  acres  are  on  the  bed  of  the 
Potomac,  in  the  Maryland  channel — in  other  words,  about  one-half  of  the  entire  area 
is  covered  by  water. 

Great  Falls  is  a series  of  rapids  in  the  river,  extending  about  one-half  or  three- 
fourths  of  a mile,  in  the  course  of  which  the  river  falls  about  70  feet.  It  is  about 
16  miles  above  Washington.  The  eastern  shore  of  the  river  is  in  Montgomery 
County,  Md.,  and  the  jurisdition  of  Maryland  extends  to  the  western  shore,  which 
is  in  Fairfax  County,  Va.  The  three  principal  owners  of  the  lands  adjacent  to 
Great  Falls  are  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  Company,  and  the  United  States.  A fairly  good  estimate  mav*be  formed  of 


8 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


the  extent  of  their  respective  ownerships  by  an  inspection  of  the  plat  and  compar- 
ing the  lengths  of  the  mainland  and  island  shores  owned  hy  them. 

The  only  existing  improvement  of  water  rights  at  the  falls  is  the  aqueduct  dam 
built  hy  the  United  States. 

Conn’s  Island  is  above  the  falls  proper.  It  is  about  3,500  feet  long,  about  1,000 
feet  wide  at  the  widest  place,  and  about  670  feet  wide  at  the  place  near  the  foot  of 
the  island  where  it  is  crossed  by  the  extension  of  the  aqueduct  dam.  Its  axis  is 
about  parallel  with  the  thread  of  the  current  of  the  river,  which  at  the  falls  runs 
about  due  south.  The  island  is  low  and,  where  it  is  crossed  by  the  extension  of  the 
dam,  rocky.  It  is  cut  up  by  numerous  channels,  ancL  the  major  part  of  the  entire 
island  is,  during  ordinary  spring  freshets,  overflowed  by  the  river. 

The  island  is  unimproved  and  uninhabited.  The  land  is  of  but  little  value,  if  any. 
As  a riparian  owner,  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  claims  an  interest  in 
the  water  that  flows  both  in  the  Maryland  and  Virginia  channels,  and  it  is  this 
ownership  that  has  been  the  basis  of  litigation  and  of  claims  against  the  United 
States  for  thirty  years.  The  United  States  is  a riparian  owner  opposite  Conn’s 
Island  both  on  the  Virginia  and  Maryland  shores,  and  if  the  assumption  that  the 
proportion  of  right  of  control  of  the  water  flowing  in  an  unnavigable  channel,  held 
by  each  of  two  opposite  riparian  owners,  does  not  depend  on  the  relative  lengths  of 
their  shore  lines  be  correct,  then  it  would  appear  that  the  United  States  has  as  much 
of  the  right  of  control  of  the  water  flowing  on  each  side  of  Conn’s  Island  as  have 
the  owners  of  the  island. 

Land  on  the  Maryland  shore  at  Great  Falls  may  be  worth  $200  an  acre,  but  not 
more.  I am  told  that  land  on  the  Virginia  shore  is  worth  from  $20  to  $30  an  acre. 

I invite  attention  to  the  following  important  points  in  the  act  of  July  15, 1882, 
and  in  Senate  bill  1359. 

(1)  The  amount  authorized  by  Congress  to  be  expended  under  the  act  is,  for  land 
and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls,  limited  to  $45,000. 

The  amount  that,  for  the  same  object,  may  be  expended  under  the  provisions  of 
the  bill  if  enacted  in  its  present  form,  and  if  the  prices  for  the  land  and  the  water 
rights  can  be  agreed  on  with  the  owners,  is  apparantly  unlimited.  In  the  cases 
where  there  be  no  agreement  the  owners  may  institute  suits  in  the  Court  of  Claims, 
and  the  judgments  of  the  court  are  apparently  to  be  paid  without  limit  by  the 
Treasury  Department. 

(2)  The  act  contains  the  following  provision  : 

“ In  making  the  valuation  the  appraisers  shall  only  considered  the  present  value  of 
the  land  without  reference  to  its  value  for  the  uses  for  which  it  is  taken  Under  the 
provisions  of  this  act.” 

There  is  no  such  provision  in  the  bill,  but  for  the  reason  that  the  value  of  its 
water  supply  to  Washington  or  any  increase  thereof  is  inestimable,  there  being  no 
standard  of  values  that  can  properly  be  applied  to  it,  I think  it  important  that  a pro- 
vision similar  to  the  foregoing  should  be  applied  to  the  water  rights  as  well  as  the 
land  at  Great  Falls  to  be  taken  under  the  terms  of  the  bill. 

(3)  The  bill  requires  that  the  land  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls  are  to  be  taken 
to  the  extent  that  may  Y©  deemed  “ necessary  for  the  present  and  future  supply  of 
said  District  of  Columbia,  the  water  so  taken  to  be  used  for  any  and  all  purposes.” 
This  is  not  contained  in  the  act  which  the  bill  proposes  to  amend.  The  present  sup- 
ply to  the  city  is  about  45,000,000  gallons  per  diem.  If  provision  is  to  be  made  for 
future  supply,  either  in  t\us  bill  or  elsewhere,  the  amount  should,  I think,  be  stated 
at  200,000,000  gallons  per  diem.  This,  for  tlm  reason  that  from  computations  that  I 
made  after  the  last  census  of  Washington  (1$90),  I found  the  supply  per  diem  per 
capita  to  be  about  200  gallons,  and  I am  of  the  opinion  that  if  we  are  now  to  make 
arrangements  for  all  time  provision  should  be  made  for  not  less  than  1,000,000 
inhabitants. 

(4)  The  bill  provides  (section  2)  that  in  cases  of  agreement  with  the  owners  as  to 
the  prices  of  land  and  water  rights  taken,  and  where  there  be  disagreements  in  cases 
of  judgments  rendered  by  the  Court  of  Claims,  the  officials  specified  in  the  bill 
“ shall  have  authority  to  enter  into  contracts  with  the  owners  of  the  land  adjacent 
to  the  Great  Falls,  respectively,  to  secure  to  the  latter  the  right  to  use,  and  facilities 
for  using,  so  much  of  the  water  of  the  Potomac  as  may  not  be  taken  as  aforesaid 
and  used  by  the  United  States.  And  to  this  end  they  may  authorize  or  permit  such 
structures  to  be  made  as  may  be  necessary  and  the  value  of  any  rights  thus  granted 
shall  be  received  in  part  payment  of  the  land  and  water  rights  taken  as  aforesaid.” 

There  is  nothing  referring  to  these  contracts  in  the  act,  and  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  full  meaning  and  intention  of  this  provision.  Whatever  they  may  be,  it 
seems  to  be  clear  that  the  bill  contemplates  that  the  United  States  shall  secure  to 
the  owners  of  land  at  Great  Falls  the  facilities  for  using,  as  well  as  the  right  to  use, 
all  of  the  flow*  of  the  Potomac  that  may  not  be  taken  and  used  by  the  United  States. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  instance,  that  the  United  States,  for  itself  and  the  District  of 
Columbia,  “lakes”  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  that  is  to  say,  acquires  by  an 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


9 


-exercise  of  -the  right  of  eminent  domain  the  right  to  take  200,000,000  gallons  of 
water  per  diem.  The  quantity  that  may  he  “ taken  and  used7’ is  different.  It  is 
the  quantity  sent  down  and  to  he  sent  down  to  Washington  through  the  Aqueduct 
and  future  additions  to  the  Aqueduct.  It  will  increase  from  year  to  year,  and  the 
hill  contemplates  Such  increase  without  additional  compensation  to  the  owners  of 
the  land  and  water  rights,  up  to  the  limit  of  the  quantity  “ taken.” 

I can  hest  explain  the  point  I wish  to  make,  in  respect  of  this  part  of  the  hill,  hy 
figures. 

In  a suit  against  the  United  States  for  damages  in  the  sum  of  $500,000  by  the  Great 
Falls  Manufacturing  Company,  as  owners  of  Conn’s  Island  (in  which  judgment  was 
rendered  in  1879  against  the  United  States  for  $15,692),  it  was  agreed  on  hy  counsel 
and  accepted  hy  the  court,  that  the  low- water  flow  of  the  Potomac  should  he  stated 
at  1,065  cubic  feet  per  second,  say  700,000,000  gallons  per  diem.  Excluding  the  times 
of  freshets,  the  average  flow  may  he  said  to  he  at  least  6,500,000,000  gallons  per  diem. 
In  times  of  very  high  water  and  freshets  it  is  much  greater,  and  in  the  flood  of  1889 
it  was  at  the  rate  probably  of  not  less  than  305,650,000,000  gallons  per  diem.* 

Assuming,  for  illustration,  that  the  quantity  of  water  now  “ taken  and  used”  hy 
the  United  States  is,  say,  45,000,000  gallons  per  diem,  and  that  the  quantity  to  he 
“ taken”  under  the  provisions  of  the  hill  he  200,000,000  gallons  per  diem,  the  hill 
would  require  that  the  United  States  shall  secure  to  the  owners  of  the  lands  adja- 
cent to  the  falls  the  facilities  for  using  (and  also  the  right  to  use)  the  following 
-quantities  of  water  per  diem : 

During  low-water  flow,  say,  655,000.000  gallons  now,  decreasing  to  500,000,000  gal- 
lons when  the  limit  of  the  quantity  “ taken,”  say,  200,000,000  gallons  per  diem,  shall 
he  reached. 

During  average  flow  (excluding  freshets),  say,  6,455,000,000  gallons  now,  decreasing 
to  6,300,000,000  gallons  when  the  above-mentioned  limit  shall  be  reached. 

To  these  quantities  should  he  added  the  constantly  varying  (decreasing)  difference 
between  the  quantity  of  water  “ taken”  and  the  quantity  of  water  “used,”  the  lat- 
ter quantity,  as  said  before,  being  at  this  time,  say,  45,000,000  gallons  per  diem. 

To  “ secure”  to  the  owners  of  the  land  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls  the  facili- 
ties for  using  the  remainder  of  the  flow  of  the  Potomac  (whether  this  remainder  he, 
as  it  would  he,  more  than  two -thirds  of  the  low- water  flow  and  about  97  per  cent 
•of  the  average  flow),  may  mean  either  to  provide  these  facilities  and  keep  them  in 
repair!  or  to  make  the  facilities  eertain. 

The  explanatory  words  “ authorize  and  permit”  in  the  next  sentence  seem  to  pre- 
clude the  first  of  these  meanings ; but  if  it  should  be  held  to  be  the  true  one,  the 
United  States  would  either  be  obliged  to  make  a cut  or  cuts  in  the  aqueduct  dam 
through  which  this  remainder  could  be  drawn,  or  to  construct  a dam  below  the 
aqueduct  dam  to  collect,  and  from  behind  which  could  be  transmitted  to  the  manu- 
factories and  other  works  below  the  falls  the  water  flowing  over  the  aqueduct  dam. 
The  first  of  these  would  be  inadmissible,  for  the  reason  that  any  cut  or  cuts  in  the 
aqueduct  dam  would  impair  and  make  irregular  the  supply  to  the  city  through  the 
aqueduct.  To  construct  across  the  Virginia  channel  a dam  below  the  aqueduct  dam 
would  cost,  say,  $150,000. 

The  second  supposed  meaning  being  adjudged  the  true  one,  the  word  “ secure  ” 
would  simply  have  reference  to  the  manner  of  drawing  up  the  contract  referred  to 
in  the  section. 

The  closing  words  of  section  2,  viz,  “and  the  value  of  any  rights  thus  granted” 
to  the  owners  of  the  land  and  water  rights  “shall  be  received  in  part  pay  me  At  of 
land  and  water  rights  taken  as  aforesaid,”  are  difficult  to  understand.  It  requires  a 
quantity  to  be  deducted  from  another  quantity  less  than  itself. 

The  value  to  each  of  the  owners  of  the  water  rights  at  Great  Falls  is  the  value  of 
his  share  of  the  water  of  the  river  flowing  at  that  point,  and  may  be  stated  at  a rate 
per  1,000,000  gallons  per  diem.  The  share  may  be  used  by  its  owner  for  a supply  for 
domestic  purposes,  or  for  power,  or  for  both,  or  he  may  sell  it.  The  value  of  the 


■ Prof.  Babb,  American  Society  Civil  Engineers  of  the  Geological  Survey,  in 
a paper  on  the  Hydrography  of  the  Potomac  Basin  (1891),  gives  the  following 
averages  of  flow  of  the  Potomac  at  Great  Falls.  His  statements  are  in  cubic  feet, 
and  I have  reduced  them  to  gallons : 


Average  floiv  of  the  Potomac  at 


Great  Falls,  in  gallons  per  diem. 


1886  8,107,128,000 

1887  7,698,240,000 

1888  9,956,020,000 


I 1889 21,327,624,000 

1890 13,846,464,000 

| 1891 17,449,344,000 


t In  the  claim  of  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  (see  ante)  are  the  follow- 
ing words:  “If  the  United  States  * * * shall  provide  the  means  for  such 

•drawing.” 


10 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


land,  apart  from  the  value  of  the  water  rights,  is  its  value  for  sites  of  manufactories 
below  the  falls;  for  sites  of  dwellings  for  workmen  and  others,  and  for  the  location 
of  canals  leading  from  the  head  of  the  falls  to  the  works. 

In  the  case  supposed,  the  United  States  “ takes  ” under  the  operation  of  section  1 
of  the  bill,  that  is,  secures  a right  to  take,  a water  supply  for  a population  of  1,000,000 
inhabitants,  say,  200,000,000  gallons  per  diem.  This  is  the  “water  right  taken.” 
The  United  States  also  “takes”  about  21  acres  of  land,  about  one-half  of  it  being  in 
the  bed  of  the  Potomac  and  the  other  half  being  a rocky  and  uncultivable  strip 
across  Conns  Island.  This  is  the  “land  taken.” 

The  words  “ rights  thus  granted,”  near  the  end  of  section  2, refer  to  the  right  to  be 
secured  to  the  owners  of  the  land  by  the  United  States  of  using,  as  has  just  been 
explained,  the  remainder  of  the  flow  of  the  Potomac,  say  two-thirds  of  the  low- 
water  flow  and  about  97  per  cent  of  the  average  flow.  The  value  of  the  water  per 
1,000,000  gallons  per  diem  (whether  it  be  the  water  to  be  taken  by  the  United 
States,  or  the  remainder  to  be  secured  to  two  of  the  owners  of  the  falls — the  third 
owner  being  the  United  States)  should  be  the  same  in  each  case,  but  in  section  2 it 
is  said  “ the  value  of  any  rights  thus  granted  shall  be  received  in  part  payment  of 
the  land  and  water  rights  taken.”  The  value  of  the  water  “ rights  thus  granted,”  is 
immensely  superior  to  the  value  of  the  “ water  right  taken,”  as  may  be  seen  by  com- 
paring the  quantity  of  water  “ granted”  with  the  quantity  of  water  “ taken,”  and 
the  difficulty  of  understanding  what  is  intended  by  requiring  that  the  value  of  the 
former  shall  be  received  in  part  payment  of  the  latter  is  not  explained  by  the  fact 
that  in  addition  to  the  “ water  rights  taken”  there  was  “land  taken,”  for,  being 
above  the  falls,  the  land  is  not  valuable  for  any  of  the  purposes  just  mentioned,  and 
apart  from  its  water  rights  it  is  certainly  not  worth  more  than  $1,000. 

If,  under  the  terms  of  the  bill,  all  of  the  water  rights  at  Great  Falls,  that  is  to  say 
the  entire  flow  of  the  Potomac,  could  be  “taken”  by  the  United  States — provision 
being  made  that  all  the  water  not  required  by  the  United  States  should  be  “ granted  ” 
back  to  the  owners  of  the  water  rights — the  intention  of  section  2 would  be  apparent, 
but  the  bill  gives  authority  to  “ take”  only  the  quantity  of  water  deemed  necessary 
for  the  present  and  future  supply  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  say  200,000,000  gallons 
per  diem.  The  intention  of  the  section  would  also  be  apparent  if  it  should,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  drawer  of  the  bill,  have  been  considered  that  the  value  per  1,000,000 
gallons  of  the  water  to  be  “ granted”  back  and  secured  to  the  owners  of  the  land,  is 
exceedingly  small  as  compared  with  the  value  per  1,000,000  gallons  of  the  water  to 
be  “taken”  by  the  United  States. 

If,  as  might  be  inferred  from  the  bill,  the  co-owneru  with  the  United  States 
actually  own  all  the  remainder  of  the  water  that  is  not  drawn  from  the  river  by  the 
Aqueduct,  I do  not  see  the  necessity,  or,  as  there  is  a question  as  to  this  ownership, 
the  propriety  of  confirming  it  by  contracts.  I think,  therefore,  that  all  of  section  2 
after  the  word  “entitled”  in  line  7 and  all  of  section  3 comprised  between  and 
including  the  word  “and”  in  line  6 and  the  word  “States”  in  line  9 should  be 
stricken  out  of  the  bill. 

(5)  It  will  have  been  observed  that  provision  was  made  in  the  act  of  1882  and 
provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  the  ascertainment  and  payment  of  damages.  The 
damages  referred  to  are  damages  to  water  rights,  that  is,  the  diversion  of  water  from 
the  river  above  the  falls  through  the  aqueduct  to  Washington.  This  is  evidenced 
by  the  claims  filed  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  and  by  previous  claims  and  by 
the  suit  of  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  against  the  United  States  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made.  That  caution  should  be  observed  in  the 
consideration  of  what  the  bill  contains  respecting  these  damages  is  made  manifest: 

(A)  By  comparing  the  magnitude  of  the  extravagant  claims  for  damages  already 
filed  with  the  very  small  proportion  of  the  water  now  diverted  and  of  the  water  that 
can  under  the  terms  of  the  bill  be  diverted  to  Washington  as  compared  with  the 
total  flow  of  the  river,  and  by  comparing  also  the  amount  of  these  claims  with  the 
amount  ($45,000)  that  Congress  in  its  act  of  1882  deemed  sufficient  to  pay  for  all  the 
land  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls  that  were  to  be  taken  under  the  act. 

(B)  By  an  inspection  of  the  plat  entitled  “ Great  Falls  of  the  Potomac  and  Vicin- 
ity” which  accompanies  this  report  it  will  be  seen  that,  thanks  to  the  wise  foresight 
about  forty  years  ago  of  the  late  Gen.  Meigs,  the  United  States  is  owner  of  a tract 
(of  about  6 acres)  at  the  Virginia  end  of  the  dam;  that  it  is  owner  of  a tract  (of 
about  20  acres)  called  “Resurvey  of  Hard  to  come  at,”  that  it  is  half  owner  of  a tract 
(of  about  99  acres)  called  “Resurvey  on  Hard  to  come  at,”  including  Falls  Island, 
and  that  it  is  owner  of  a lot  (of  about  acres)  on  which  stands  the  watchman  gate- 
keeper’s house,  being  a part  of  a tract  called  Goose  Pond. 

The  total  area  of  these  lands  is  about  1304  acres,  and  their  cost  to  the  United 
States,  including  the  cost  of  the  water  rights  belonging  to  them,  was  $3,720. 

It  is  also  owner  of  the  right  (conferred  by  the  decision  in  1879  in  the  case  of  the 
suit  of  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  against  the  United  States)  of  main- 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


11 


taining  the  clam  across  the  Maryland  channel  at  its  present  height  of  148  feet  above 
the  height  of  low  tide  at  the  navy-yard  at  Washington. 

As  the  purchases  of  the  land  mentioned  carried  with  them  all  the  water  rights 
belonging  to  them  it  would  appear,  and  I have  no  doubt,  although  it  has  so  far  as  I 
can  discover  not  heretofore  been  stated  or  asserted  that  the  United  States  is  of  right 
entitled  to  more  than  one-third  of  all  the  water  rights  at  Great  Falls,  and  is  therefore 
entitled  to  more  than  one-third  of  all  the  water  flowing  there.  For  the  reason  that 
the  45,000,000  gallons  per  diem  now  diverted  from  the  river  for  the  supply  of  Wash- 
ington is,  as  has  been  before  stated,  but  a small  fraction  of  this  proportional  part  of 
the  water,  and  for  the  reason  that  even  if  there  should  be  diverted  the  200,000,000 
gallons  per  diem  required  for  a population  of  1,000,000  of  inhabitants,  this  propor- 
tional part  would  still  not  be  nearly  reached,  I think  it  extremely  doubtful  if  in 
respect  of  their  water  rights  the  other  owners  of  land  adjacent  to  the  falls  have  ever 
been,  or  will  ever  be,  damaged  by  the  United  States  by  the  withdrawal  from  the 
river  of  the  water  supply  of  Washington. 

(C.)  I find  in  the  brief  of  special  counsel  for  the  United  States  in  the  suit  of  the 
Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  against  the  United  States  for  damages  to  water 
rights  of  the  former  by  the  construction  of  the  dam  across  the  Maryland  channel, 
which  suit  was  decided  in  1879,  the  following  important  statement  respecting  the 
Toulson  tract  owned  by  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company : 

“While  we  do  not  think  the  Toulson  tract  and  the  riparian  rights  appurtenant 
thereto  have  been  invaded  by  the  United  States,  and  contend  that  they  are  not 
entitled  to  consideration  in  the  present  case  we  deem  it  proper,  in  view  of  the  effect 
which  the  ascertainment  of  those  rights  by  the  court  might  have  upon  a future 
extension  of  the  dam,  to  state  distinctly  our  position. 

“(1)  The  court  of  appeals  of  Maryland,  in  a proceeding  between  the  parties  to  the 
present  suit,  held  that  the  State  of  "Maryland,  by  legislative  grant,  had  conferred,  in 
1853,  upon  the  United  States  the  soil  between  the  Virginia  low- water  mark  and  the 
medium  filum  aquce  extending  from  a point  above  to  a point  below  the  falls  (21  Md. 
Rep.,  p.  119,  and  pp.  375,  376,  377  record;  Baltimore  v.  McKim,  3 BL,  453.) 

“ The  riparian  right  appurtenant  to  the  Toulson  tract  has  thus  become  res  judicata. 

“(2)  The  court  of  Maryland  had  juristiction  of  the  res  because  it  was  included 
within  the  grant  to  Lord  Baltimore  in  1632  (see  Bacon’s  laws  of  Maryland,  vol.  — , 
p.  — ) ; and  because,  further,  no  act  of  Maryland  has  ever  ceded  this  jurisdiction, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  Virginia  ever  claimed  it.” 

If  my  inference  drawn  from  this  statement  be  the  true  one,  then  the  Great  Falls 
Manufacturing  Company,  apart  from  the  rights  conferred  by  its  ownership  of  Conn’s 
Island  above  the  Falls  has  no  interest  in  the  water  rights  (water)  at  Great  Falls, 
and  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company's  land  being  cut  off  from  the  main 
channel  of  the  river  by  the  interposing  land  of  the  United  States  bordering  on  this 
channel,  called  “Hard  to  come  at,”  the  United  States  owns  of  right  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  all  the  water  rights  at  the  Falls.  Without  regard  to  its  water  rights  the 
Toulson  tract  is,  however,  the  most  valuable  land  at  the  Falls,  it  containing,  as  before 
stated,  the  best  site  for  manufactories  and  other  works  below  the  Falls,  and  also  the 
remains  of  the  old  Potomac  canal  constructed  by  General  Washington  in  1785,  which 
is  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  location  practicable  for  a canal  from  the  head  of  the  Falls 
to  these  sites. 

For  the  reason  that  the  two  co-owners  with  the  United  States  at  Great  Falls  will 
no  doubt  employ,  in  the  trials  of  the  suits  for  damages  that  are  to  be  had  in  the 
Court  of  Claims  in  case  of  failure  of  the  United  States  to  agree  with  these  owners 
as  to  values,  lawyers  skilled  in  such  cases,  I think  it  most  important  that  the  sixth 
section  of  the  bill  be  so  amended  as  to  authorize  and  direct  the  employment  by  the 
United  States  in  these  suits  of  special  legal  counsel  conspicuous  for  known  famil- 
iarity with  and  experience  in  the  laws  regulating  riparian  rights  and  in  hydraulics. 
The  eighth  section  of  the  bill  also  should  be  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  payment 
of  this  counsel  and  of  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  Government.  * * * 

The  amendments  that  I have  suggested,  and  a few  others,  the  objects  of  which  will 
be  apparent,  would,  I believe,  thoroughly  guard  the  interests  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  and,  for  the  reasons  that  follow,  I think  it  of  very 
great  importance  that,  as  amended,  the  bill  be  passed  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
legislation  provided  for  in  the  bill  as  amended,  is,  in  my  estimation,  more  important 
than  any  other  that  has  been  enacted  since  the  construction  of  the  aqueduct. 

(1)  The  decision  of  the  Court  of  Claims  of  1879  having  been  mainly  in  respect  of  the 
damage  to  the  owners  of  Conn’s  Island  by  reason  of  the  abutting  on  that  island  of 
the  dam  across  the  Maryland  channel  (or  rather  by  reason  of  an  agreement  as  to  this 
damage  in  1862  between  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  the  Great  Falls  Manufac- 
turing Company,  which  the  United  States,  in  the  suit  decided  in  1879,  claimed  to 
have  been  illegal),  there  has  not  been  since  the  extension  of  the  dam  to  the  Virginia 
shore,  nor  at  any  time,  a judicial  decision  of  the  extent  of  the  rights  of  the  United 
States  at  Great  Falls,  and  this  bill  furnishes  an  opportunity  for  such  decision.  When 


12 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


the  decision  has  been  made,  it  would  operate  for  all  time,  and,  when  future  additions 
to  the  Washington  water  supply  have  to  be  made  from  time  to  time,  as  the  popula- 
tion increases,  the  required  quantities  can  be  taken  from  the  river  without  further 
action  of  the  courts  and  without  further  legislation  of  Congress  except  the  making 
of  the  appropriations  necessary  for  raising  the  dam  and  other  works,  if  any,  required 
for  these  additions. 

(2)  The  lands  at  Great  Falls  taken  by  the  United  States  from  the  Great  Falls  Man- 
ufacturing Company  under  the  operation  of  and  by  direction  of  the  act  of  July, 
1882,  and  seA^eral  small  parcels  of  land  taken,  also  without  payment,  from  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  a portion  under  the  operation  of  the  act  of  July  15, 
1882,  and  the  remainder  at  previous  times,  have  never  been  paid  for. 

The  lands  taken  from  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company  are : The  lot  at 
Great  Falls  on  which  stands  the  gatehouse  that  regulates  the  supply  of  water 
through  the  aqueduct  to  Washington  ; the  land  extending  from  this  lot  to  the  Mary- 
land bank  of  the  river,  including  the  right  to  pass  the  aqueduct  under  the  canal; 
the  land  under  which  is  the  upper  portion  of  tunnel  No.  1,  and  the  land  occupied  by 
The  aqueduct  between  the  gatehouse  and  the  head  of  this  tunnel;  a parcel  of  parcel 
in  Montgomery  County,  Md.,  occupied  by  a portion  of  the  aqueduct,  and  a parcel 
of  land  in  the  District  of  Columbia  occupied  by  the  mains  leading  from  the  dis- 
tributing reservoir  to  the  city. 

I am  told  that  the  charters  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  derived 
from  the  United  States  and  from  Maryland,  provide  that  no  adverse  possession  shall 
liold  against  any  of  its  properties.  If  this  be  the  case,  an  application  of  the  statute 
of  limitations,  even  if  it  should  be  deemed  proper  and  advisable,  could  not  be  made 
to  operate  against  these  lands,  some  of  which  have  been  occupied  by  the  works  of 
the  Washington  Aqueduct  for  nearly  forty  years,  and  the  bill  should  be  so  amended  as 
to  include  these  lands,  to  the  end  that  their  values  may  be  judicially  and  fairly  deter- 
mined and  paid  to  the  owners. 

(3)  The  question  of  what  are  the  rights  of  the  United  States  at  Great  Falls,  how 
much  of  the  water  of  the  river  it  is  entitled  to,  should  be  settled.  The  language  of  the 
bill  seems  to  imply  that  these  rights  are  very  small  in  comparison  with  other  rights; 
that  the  dra  wing  for  the  Washington  supply  of  the  small  quanty  of  water  heretofore 
used  and  now  used  (that  is  to  say,  small  in  comparison  with  future  wants),  has  been, 
and  is,  an  infringement  on  the  rights  of  others,  and  that  damage  has  been  done  to 
others.  If  this  be  the  case,  the  facts  should  be  known  before  any  new  obligations 
are  created.  The  time  has  now  come  when  the  water  supply  of  Washington  must  be 
increased.  It  is  imperative  that  the  present  dam  at  Great  Falls  be  raised  through- 
out its  entire  length  as  soon  as  an  appropriation  can  be  obtained  for  this  purpose, 
and  it  is  my  intention  to  submit  an  estimate  for  the  work  in  my  next  annual  esti- 
mates. The  necessity  for  this  arises  from  the  fact  that  in  summer  during  the  low 
stages  of  the  river  I iind  it  impossible  to  keep  the  distributing  reservoir  up  to  the 
height  of  146  feet  above  datum,  which  is  required  for  the  full  service  of  the  mains 
leading  from  the  reservoir  to  the  city.  During  these  low  stages  of  the  river,  the 
aqueduct  at  its  intake  lacks,  in  respect  of  its  height,  about  2£  feet  of  being  full,  and 
the  dam  must  be  raised  accordingly.  If  the  dam  be  raised  24  feet,  not  only  would 
the  aqueduct  never  fail  to  run  full,  but  the  “head”  of  water  being  raised  at  the 
intake,  the  velocity  through  the  aqueduct  w ould  be  very  much  increased.  If  the 
bill  be  passed  before  raising  the  dam,  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  draw  the 
additional  quantity  of  water  from  Great  Falls  will  have  been  obtained  by  the  exer- 
cise of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  provided  for  in  the  bill,  and  the  work  can  go  on 
without  delay.  Otherwise  the  work  may  be  enjoined  in  the  Maryland  court  and 
have  to  be  suspended  until  the  legal  questions  be  decided. 

(4)  It  is  desirable  that  all  existing  contentions  and  claims  against  the  United  States 
be  settled  judicially  and  fairly  in  the  manner  proposed  in  the  bill  as  amended. 

The  amendments  that  I would  propose  are  as  follows,  and  they  will  be  found  in  the 
copy  of  the  bill  herewith,  marked  A : 

In  section  1,  line  13,  insert  after  the  word  “all”  the  word  “public,”  and  in  the 
same  line  strike  out  the  words  “ninety  days”  and  insert  the  words  “six  months,” 
and  in  line  30  insert  after  the  word  “amendment”  the  words  “or  otherwise.” 

In  section  2 insert  after  the  word  “height  ” in  line  5 the  words  “ or  by  raising  the 
dam  to  such  height  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  this  act,”  and  strike  out 
all  of  the  section  after  the  word  “ entitled  ” in  line  7. 

In  section  3,  after  the  word  “height”  in  line  6 insert  the  words  “or  by  reason  of 
raising  the  dam  to  such  height  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  this  act.  In 
making  the  valuations  the  appraisers  shall  only  consider  the  present  values  of  the 
land  and  water  rights,  without  reference  to  their  values  for  the  uses  for  which  they 
are  taken  under  the  provisions  of  this  act.”  And  strike  out  all  of  the  words  from  and 
including  the  word  “ and  ” in  line  6 to  and  including  the  word  “ States  ” in  line  9. 

In  section  4,  after  the  word  “ height”  in  line  6 insert  the  words  “or  by  reason  of 
raising  the  dam  to  such  height  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  this  act,”  and 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


13 


ifter  the  word  “ States  ” in  line  17  add  the  words  “ Provided,  that  the  United  States 
hall  be  represented  in  snch  suits  by  special  legal  counsel  conspicuous  for  known 
amiliarity  with  and  experience  in  the  laws  regulating  riparian  rights  and  in  liydrau- 
ics.” 

In  section  6,  lines  2 and  3,  strike  out  the  words  “ one  or  more  ” and  insert  the  word 
‘ two.” 

In  section  8,  line  7,  after  the  word  “referees”  insert  the  words  “and  of  special 
louusel,  and  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  United  States.” 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  the  water  to  be  “ taken”  under  the  provisions  of 
he  bill  is  strictly  for  the  supply  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  the  words 
‘ the  water  so  taken  to  be  used  for  any  and  all  purposes,”  in  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
:eenth  lines  of  section  1,  refer  to  use  of  the  water  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  It  is 
lot  apparent  that  should  the  bill  become  a law  the  use  of  Potomac  water  would  be 
sxtended  to  purposes  other  than  the  purposes  of  its  present  use,  viz,  domestic  sup- 
ply, supply  of  the  public  buildings,  street  washings,  and  hydraulic  power  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia.  The  use  for  hydraulic  power  in  the  District  of  Columbia  must  be 
very  limited  by  reason  of  the  capacity  of  the  aqueduct  and  of  any  probable  additions 
;0  the  aqueduct.  Should  it  be  desired  to  use  turbines  below  the  falls  to  operate 
slectric  generators  for  transmitting  electric  power  to  Washington  and  lighting  the 
public  buildings,  no  portion  of  the  water  to  be  acquired  under  the  bill  could  be  used 
for  these  turbines.  If  Congress  would  authorize  the  taking,  under  the  operation  of 
the  provisions  of  the  bill,  of  all  the  water  flowing  at  Great  Falls,  there  would  not 
Dnly  be  no  limit  to  the  quantity  of  water  available  for  supply  to  the  District,  but 
there  would  doubtless  be  an  abundance  of  water  remaining  for  hydraulic  machinery 
[turbines)  below  the  falls,  sufficient  to  operate  a number  of  electric  generators  ade- 
quate not  only  for  the  lighting  of  the  Capitol  and  all  the  other  public  buildings,  the 
iighting  of  all  of  our  streets,  and  possibly  for  the  working  of  machinery  for  the  rais- 
ing of  water  to  the  rapidly  increasing  portion  of  the  District  that  is  above  the  area 
that  can  be  supplied  by  gravity. 

For  these  reasons  I think  it  would  be  wise  that  the  United  States  acquire  now, 
under  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  provided  for  in  the  bill,  all  of 
the  water  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls,  their  owners  to  be  paid  the  amounts  to 
be  ascertained  in  the  fair  and  just  manner  described  in  the  bill. 

For  the  reason  that  the  capacity  of  a river  for  supply  or  power  or  both  should 
probably  be  measured  by  its  low-water  flow,  its  greater  flows  being  intermittent, 
the  capacity  of  the  Potomac  at  Great  Falls  may,  according  to  the  finding  of  the 
Court  of  Claims  in  1879,  be  considered  as  J 00,000,000  gallons  of  water  per  diem. 
Deducting,  say,  200,000,000  gallons  for  the  supply  of  the  Washington  of  the  future, 
Lhere  would  never  fail  to  remain  for  power  to  be  used  for  the  purposes  suggested 
and  any  others  that  the  public  wants  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Colm- 
bia  may  develop,  a daily  supply  of  less  than  500,000,000  gallons,  say,  772  cubic  feet 
per  second.  The  fall  is,  as  before  stated,  about  70  feet. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  I have  prepared  another  copy  of  the  bill  (marked  B),  in 
which  are  the  following  suggested  amendments : 

In  section  1 strike  out  the  words  “ such  land  and”  in  line  9 and  insert  the  words 
“ all  the.”  Strike  out  the  word  “above”  in  line  10  and  insert  the  words  “ in  the 
vicinity  of.”  Strike  out  in  lines  10,  11,  and  12  the  words  “as  they  mav  deem  neces- 
sary for  the  present  and  future  supply  for  said  District  of  Columbia.”  After  the 
word  “ all  ” in  line  13  insert  the  word  “public.”  After  the  word  “ purposes  ” in  line 
13  insert  the  words  “and  also  such  land  as  maybe  necessary  for  these  purposes.” 
Strike  out  the  words  “ ninety  days”  in  line  13  and  insert  the  words  “ nine  months.” 
Strike  out  in  lines  17,  18,  and  19  the  words  “and  also  the  quantity  of  water  per  day 
necessary  for  the  above  purposes  (in  addition  to  the  amount  already  appropriated 
jyif  paid  for),”  and  substitute  therefor  the  words  “excluding  the  lands  already  pur- 
chased by  the  United  States  and  paid  for,”  and  in  line  30,  after  the  word  “amend- 
ment,” insert  the  words  “or  otherwise.” 

In  section  2,  after  the  word  “height”  in  line  5,  insert  the  words  “or  by  raising  the 
dam  to  any  height  that  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  future  supply  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  and  other  public,  purposes,”  aud  strike  out  all  of  the  section  after 
the  word  “ entitled  ” in  line  7. 

In  section  3,  after  the  word  “height”  in  line  6,  insert  the  words  “or  by  reason  of 
raising  the  dam  to  such  height  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  this  act.  In 
making  the  valuations  the  appraisers  shall  only  consider  the  present  values  of  the 
land  aaid  water  rights  without  reference  to  their  values  for  the  uses  for  which  they 
are  taken  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,”  and  strike  out  all  of  the  words  from  and 
including  the  word  “ and”  in  line  6 to  aud  including  the  word  “States  ” in  line  9. 

In  section  4,  after  the  word  “ height,”  in  line  6,  insert  the  words  “ or  by  reason  of 
raising  the  dam  to  any  height  that  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  future  supply 
of  the  District  of  Columbia  and  other  public  purposes,”  and  after  the  word  “States,” 
in  line  17,  add  the  words  “ Provided,  That  the  United  States  shall  be  represented  in 


14 


WATER  SUPPLY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


such  suits  by  special  legal  couhsel  conspicuous  for  known  familiarity  with  and 
experience  in  the  laws  regulating  riparian  rights,  and  in  hydraulics.” 

In  section  6,  lines  2 and  3,  strike  out  the  words  “ one  or  more”  and  insert  the  word 
“two.” 

In  section  8,  line  7,  after  the  word' “ referees,”  insert  the  words  “and  of  special 
counsel  and  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  United  States.” 

I should  add  that  the  lands  and  water  rights  at  Great  Falls  appear  to  be  unsettled 
in  respect  of  their  titles,  and  that  I am  informed  that  the  claim  of  the  Great  Falls 
Manufacturing  Company  to  the  title  of  the  Toulson  tract,  on  the  Virginia  side  of  the 
river,  is  not  acknowledged  by  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  which  once 
owned,  and  still  claims  to  own,  the  property. 

I should  also  add  that  it  is  well  understood  that  the  land  and  water  rights  of  the 
Great  Falls  Manufacturing  Company  have  been  for  some  years  for  sale;  also  that 
there  is  now  pending  in  the  Maryland  legislature  a charter  giving  to  a corporation 
entitled  the  Great  Falls  Power  Company,  authority  to  erect  such  dams  or  other 
structures  in  the  Potomac  River  between  the  Great  Falls  and  the  United  States 
aqueduct  dam,  as  may  he  necessary  for  the  objects  ana  purposes  set  forth  in  the 
charter,  which  include  the  selling  and  leasing  of  water  power,  the  using  of  the  same 
for  manufacturing  and  other  purposes,  and  for  generating,  transmitting,  selling,  or  j 
leasing  electricity,  electric  power  and  light,  with  the  provision  that  nothing  in  the  j 
act  “ shall  be  construed  to  give  said  Great  Falls  Power  Company  authority  to  inter- 
fere with  any  existing  rights  of  the  United  States.”  In  case  of  sale  of  the  company's 
land  and  water  rights  there  might  be  no  result  other  than  the  succession  of  a new 
claimant  and  litigant  against  the  United  States  to  the  Great  Falls  Manufacturing 
Company,  but  in  case  of  the  granting  of  the  charter  just  mentioned  by  the  State  of 
Maryland  (it  has,  as  I understand,  been  already  granted  by  the  State  of  Virginia),  I 
should  say  that  if  it  be  held  or  claimed  that  such  increase  is  not  covered  by  an  exist- 
ing right,  any  attempt  by  the  United  States  to  increase  the  water  supply  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  would,  in  the  absence  of  legislation  such  as  is  proposed  by  Senate 
bill  No.  1359,  be  very  likely  to  lead  to  contention  and  litigation.  * 

In  conclusion  I may  remark  that  the  legislation  provided  for  in  the  bill  as  amended 
seems  to  me  to  be  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  United  States  and  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and,  in  respect  of  the  water  supply  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  more 
important  than  any  that  has  been  enacted  since  the  completion  of  the  aqueduct 
thirty  years  ago.  I have  pointed  out  what  appear  to  me  to  be  the  objectionable 
features  of  the  bill,  I have  suggested  additions  that  seem  to  me  important,  and  I 
believe  that  the  bill — if  it  be  amended  as  proposed — will  thoroughly  guard  the  inter- 
ests both  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 

I do  not  think  the  amendments  that  I have  suggested  can  reasonably  be  opposed 
by  either  of  the  two  coowners  with  the  United  States  of  the  land  and  water  rights 
at  Great  Falls,  except  perhaps  in  respect  of  the  amendment  of  section  2 by  striking 
out  all  of  the  section  after  the  word  “ entitled,”  in  line  7.  The  legislation  proposed 
in  this  portion  of  the  section  would  no  doubt  be  of  enormous  advantage  to  these 
coowners,  but  in  my  judgment  it  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  inimical  to  the 
interests  both  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  it  would  be 
likely  to  lead  to  innumerable  law  suits. 

The  papers  are  herewith  returned. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

George  H.  Elliot, 

Colonel  of  Engineers. 

Brig.  Gen.  Thomas  L.  Casey, 

Chief  of  Engineers , U.  S.  Army,  Washington,  D.  C. 

* I understand  that  the  charter  referred  to  has  been  granted,  but  that  before  th 
passage  of  the  act  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company  caused  to  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  a provision  that  no  works  shall  be  constructed  by  the  Great  Falls  Power 
Company  until  the  plans  have  been  submitted  to  the  trustees  of  the  canal  company  , 
and  to  the  Board  of  Public  Works  of  Maryland,  and  approved  by  each.  An  agree- 
ment is  then  to  be  entered  into  and  a bond  filed.  The  United  States,  which  has  more 
at  stake,  is  not  thus  protected. 


O 


mac  i 


S Rept^ijf^-53  2 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N. Y 
MJ.MIL  21, 1998 


